Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

1. who counts? only AA/NA/mx/pr? what about non-mx/pr hispanic (like Dominican) or asian?2. are urms subjected to lower cutoffs (3.3 instead of 3.5), lower school rank (t20 instead of t6), or is it that the cutoff is the same but once a urm is over it, s/he gets the job automatically?

thanks

this is a complicated question without an easy answer. think of it as analogous to a points system. you get a point, but nothing's automatic.

I understand, but could you expound a little more? You didn't really get to the meat of the questions.

1. who counts? only AA/NA/mx/pr? what about non-mx/pr hispanic (like Dominican) or asian?2. are urms subjected to lower cutoffs (3.3 instead of 3.5), lower school rank (t20 instead of t6), or is it that the cutoff is the same but once a urm is over it, s/he gets the job automatically?

thanks

this is a complicated question without an easy answer. think of it as analogous to a points system. you get a point, but nothing's automatic.

I understand, but could you expound a little more? You didn't really get to the meat of the questions.

seconded. when you say "a point," is it just a point? or can it elevate a below-median/bottom-third urm from a school where the cutoff would be top-third for non-urms?

1. who counts? only AA/NA/mx/pr? what about non-mx/pr hispanic (like Dominican) or asian?2. are urms subjected to lower cutoffs (3.3 instead of 3.5), lower school rank (t20 instead of t6), or is it that the cutoff is the same but once a urm is over it, s/he gets the job automatically?

thanks

this is a complicated question without an easy answer. think of it as analogous to a points system. you get a point, but nothing's automatic.

I understand, but could you expound a little more? You didn't really get to the meat of the questions.

seconded. when you say "a point," is it just a point? or can it elevate a below-median/bottom-third urm from a school where the cutoff would be top-third for non-urms?

Assuming AA in hiring works the same way as it does in School applications, and that I learned anything in Con Law, there's no set amount that you benefit by from being URM. I'm aware they're private companies, so they're not Constitutionally constrained, but there are Federal laws on point. You just get a bump, and if it's a tangible, set amount, then that's illegal. So you're probably not going to get a response that says what the actual bump is, because it's illegal for there to be a set amount.

Anonymous User wrote:Two weeks ago I was supposed to meet with an attorney (coffee) at a firm I'm hoping to interview with at OCI. There was a bit of a mix-up and I accidentally missed him. When I figured it out I called him immediately, and apologized. He didn't make it seem it was that big of a deal at all, but I haven't heard from him since. Should I be worried at all or is this nothing?

fumagalli wrote:Are some of your partners introverts? Maybe shy or socially awkward a little? Like, they don't do well in big social settings like galas or parties?

I can take this one-- yes, absolutely, there is a not insignificant proportion of big firm partners are are introverted or socially awkward. For that reason, they don't often go to recruiting events or offer dinners or the like, but they are out there.

Regarding SAs, is there a “generally speaking” timetable on when firms target their offers? Perhaps at the end of the SA period, or the following month, or before OCI…. I realize this timetable is different from firm to firm, which is why I ask “generally speaking.” As a side note I’m guessing firms want to make their intentions known before OCI (to avoid the possibility of losing valued SAs to competing firms).

Anonymous User wrote:I KNOW you will refuse to answer this question. So, instead of "answering" it, can I ask that you "give the least bullshit numerical answer?" You can trust that I will use the "least bullshit numerical answer" only as a guide. But. Here it goes: 3 years serious work experience. Large, well-known firm in a prestigious industry. Accolades. How much GPA does that "buy" me that I can add to my actual GPA to reach a firm's internal, unstated GPA cutoff.

Yes, different for every firm. So, let's apply this ONLY to firms that would at least consider to hire in my actual GPA range, even if they rarley do so. I already know which firms meet that definition from another source.

this question seems a bit nonsensical but will try:

if you are below our cut, and we have sufficient candidates we like above our cut, you probably have a close to zero chance. if you are awesome and can wow me there's a chance.

otherwise, the only things i have to judge you on - really - are grades and the person you present to me in 20 minutes.

how can you prove to me that your awesome accolades are independently achieved? if you are a rhodes scholar, for example, that's an achievement where i understand the process for how someone obtains it and it's independent verification of awesomeness. but how do i know what your job was, really? vice president at goldman could mean you're an investment banking star, could mean you're back-office schlub, could mean your daddy's a big client.

20 minutes with you can sometimes indicate you've got more brainpower working than your grades suggest. and sometimes it can do the opposite.

So, two questions: a) let's say you think I have more brainpower than my grades suggest. Grades still matter, right? You'd have to go to bat for me if my grades are below the cut, and why would you do that? b) What if, because of the grades, you don't get the interview in the first place? That's why I was asking whether professional experience could help me get the interview.

a) if i think you'd make a great lawyer / are someone i'd want to work withb) not really sure, but guessing not. if there's a hard cut there's a hard cut.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but do you really feel that in some non-trivial number of cases you can strongly suspect that someone is going to be a great lawyer even if their composite first-year GPA suggests that you have less confidence in that belief?

(Not trying to argue. I just want to get a sense of what I can or cannot accomplish in an interview.)

fumagalli wrote:Are some of your partners introverts? Maybe shy or socially awkward a little? Like, they don't do well in big social settings like galas or parties?

I can take this one-- yes, absolutely, there is a not insignificant proportion of big firm partners are are introverted or socially awkward. For that reason, they don't often go to recruiting events or offer dinners or the like, but they are out there.

How did they get the job and advance to partnership if they're socially awkward?

fumagalli wrote:Are some of your partners introverts? Maybe shy or socially awkward a little? Like, they don't do well in big social settings like galas or parties?

I can take this one-- yes, absolutely, there is a not insignificant proportion of big firm partners are are introverted or socially awkward. For that reason, they don't often go to recruiting events or offer dinners or the like, but they are out there.

How did they get the job and advance to partnership if they're socially awkward?

fumagalli wrote:Are some of your partners introverts? Maybe shy or socially awkward a little? Like, they don't do well in big social settings like galas or parties?

I can take this one-- yes, absolutely, there is a not insignificant proportion of big firm partners are are introverted or socially awkward. For that reason, they don't often go to recruiting events or offer dinners or the like, but they are out there.

fumagalli wrote:Are some of your partners introverts? Maybe shy or socially awkward a little? Like, they don't do well in big social settings like galas or parties?

I can take this one-- yes, absolutely, there is a not insignificant proportion of big firm partners are are introverted or socially awkward. For that reason, they don't often go to recruiting events or offer dinners or the like, but they are out there.

What's your source? Does your info hold the same for V15 firms?

Yes, V15 firms have socially awkward partners. It's literally like any other group of people. Not everyone who works at a firm is a charismatic social butterfly.

fumagalli wrote:Are some of your partners introverts? Maybe shy or socially awkward a little? Like, they don't do well in big social settings like galas or parties?

I can take this one-- yes, absolutely, there is a not insignificant proportion of big firm partners are are introverted or socially awkward. For that reason, they don't often go to recruiting events or offer dinners or the like, but they are out there.

What's your source? Does your info hold the same for V15 firms?

I am summering at a V15 firm. I'd characterize maybe a quarter to a third of the partners I've interacted with as introverts. That doesn't mean that they're "aspie" or can't hold a conversation or anything like that, but there are plenty of partners who are quiet, not super outgoing, don't go to firm events, etc. (NB: I am at a firm that has a somewhat deserved reputation for being "bookish," so YMMV.)

The idea that business development comes solely from schmoozing or whatever is kind of a myth. Especially for the elite firms with institutional clients and a first-rate industry reputation, generating business comes more out of doing a superb job on your matters and building a reputation that you're really good at what you do than from charming some GC over dinner. I used to think that you had to have a certain personality to be a rainmaker, but there are plenty of well-respected partners who might not fit your stereotype of a hotshot lawyer but who are just damned good at their job.

fumagalli wrote:Are some of your partners introverts? Maybe shy or socially awkward a little? Like, they don't do well in big social settings like galas or parties?

I can take this one-- yes, absolutely, there is a not insignificant proportion of big firm partners are are introverted or socially awkward. For that reason, they don't often go to recruiting events or offer dinners or the like, but they are out there.

What's your source? Does your info hold the same for V15 firms?

I am summering at a V15 firm. I'd characterize maybe a quarter to a third of the partners I've interacted with as introverts. That doesn't mean that they're "aspie" or can't hold a conversation or anything like that, but there are plenty of partners who are quiet, not super outgoing, don't go to firm events, etc. (NB: I am at a firm that has a somewhat deserved reputation for being "bookish," so YMMV.)

The idea that business development comes solely from schmoozing or whatever is kind of a myth. Especially for the elite firms with institutional clients and a first-rate industry reputation, generating business comes more out of doing a superb job on your matters and building a reputation that you're really good at what you do than from charming some GC over dinner. I used to think that you had to have a certain personality to be a rainmaker, but there are plenty of well-respected partners who might not fit your stereotype of a hotshot lawyer but who are just damned good at their job.

to give a different perspective, at my old company, if we needed legal work in a particular niche that we hadn't dealt with before, we would find out who has a reputation for doing excellent work, both by asking our contacts and by checking sources like Chambers. After that, the only personality test was "can we work with this person?", which is a relatively low bar. We never physically met most of the attorneys we worked with either (particularly if they're not in the same geographic area)

fumagalli wrote:Are some of your partners introverts? Maybe shy or socially awkward a little? Like, they don't do well in big social settings like galas or parties?

I can take this one-- yes, absolutely, there is a not insignificant proportion of big firm partners are are introverted or socially awkward. For that reason, they don't often go to recruiting events or offer dinners or the like, but they are out there.

What's your source? Does your info hold the same for V15 firms?

I am summering at a V15 firm. I'd characterize maybe a quarter to a third of the partners I've interacted with as introverts. That doesn't mean that they're "aspie" or can't hold a conversation or anything like that, but there are plenty of partners who are quiet, not super outgoing, don't go to firm events, etc. (NB: I am at a firm that has a somewhat deserved reputation for being "bookish," so YMMV.)

The idea that business development comes solely from schmoozing or whatever is kind of a myth. Especially for the elite firms with institutional clients and a first-rate industry reputation, generating business comes more out of doing a superb job on your matters and building a reputation that you're really good at what you do than from charming some GC over dinner. I used to think that you had to have a certain personality to be a rainmaker, but there are plenty of well-respected partners who might not fit your stereotype of a hotshot lawyer but who are just damned good at their job.

I'm at a V10 (but also with a bookish reputation) and I would say that upwards of 50% of partners I've met I wouldn't consider traditionally outgoing or salesman type. I think people tend to forget that GCs at F500 companies are usually just former partners at biglaw firms who don't need to be sold on the personality of the lawyer so much as their ability to do good work. The common thread for partners seems to be an unusual dedication to their job (long hours), an insane attention to certain details, and being particularly responsive to what clients ask for.

so I'm just inside the top 1/3 at a midwest t35. was selected for an interview with a v10, and it was pre-select, not lottery, so they definitely chose by resumes. in all seriousness, why did I get an interview?

Anonymous User wrote:so I'm just inside the top 1/3 at a midwest t35. was selected for an interview with a v10, and it was pre-select, not lottery, so they definitely chose by resumes. in all seriousness, why did I get an interview?

any tips for the interview given the situation?

It's happened to me also. Just impress them with your knowledge of their firm, etc.

Anonymous User wrote:So, two questions: a) let's say you think I have more brainpower than my grades suggest. Grades still matter, right? You'd have to go to bat for me if my grades are below the cut, and why would you do that? b) What if, because of the grades, you don't get the interview in the first place? That's why I was asking whether professional experience could help me get the interview.

a) if i think you'd make a great lawyer / are someone i'd want to work withb) not really sure, but guessing not. if there's a hard cut there's a hard cut.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but do you really feel that in some non-trivial number of cases you can strongly suspect that someone is going to be a great lawyer even if their composite first-year GPA suggests that you have less confidence in that belief?

(Not trying to argue. I just want to get a sense of what I can or cannot accomplish in an interview.)

Have you ever met someone that's so charismatic, so impressive in person that you are blown away?

fumagalli wrote:Are some of your partners introverts? Maybe shy or socially awkward a little? Like, they don't do well in big social settings like galas or parties?

I can take this one-- yes, absolutely, there is a not insignificant proportion of big firm partners are are introverted or socially awkward. For that reason, they don't often go to recruiting events or offer dinners or the like, but they are out there.

What's your source? Does your info hold the same for V15 firms?

I am summering at a V15 firm. I'd characterize maybe a quarter to a third of the partners I've interacted with as introverts. That doesn't mean that they're "aspie" or can't hold a conversation or anything like that, but there are plenty of partners who are quiet, not super outgoing, don't go to firm events, etc. (NB: I am at a firm that has a somewhat deserved reputation for being "bookish," so YMMV.)

The idea that business development comes solely from schmoozing or whatever is kind of a myth. Especially for the elite firms with institutional clients and a first-rate industry reputation, generating business comes more out of doing a superb job on your matters and building a reputation that you're really good at what you do than from charming some GC over dinner. I used to think that you had to have a certain personality to be a rainmaker, but there are plenty of well-respected partners who might not fit your stereotype of a hotshot lawyer but who are just damned good at their job.

This is mostly right. If you've done 30 deals for a client and done an impressive job every time the fact that you're not the most charming person in the world doesn't matter much. But it also vastly depends on the group. You'll find more prevalence of charm in "marquee" groups than you will in "support" groups

itbdvorm wrote:This is mostly right. If you've done 30 deals for a client and done an impressive job every time the fact that you're not the most charming person in the world doesn't matter much. But it also vastly depends on the group. You'll find more prevalence of charm in "marquee" groups than you will in "support" groups

Yes but how did these people get the job in the first place if they have to pass a callback where the partners evaluate them and their charm, esp. @ a place like V15 or CSM?

Anonymous User wrote:My grades are great (top 5%) but I just found out I didn't make LR. Obviously this is going to hurt me in interviews, but how can I minimize the damage?

Posting school will be helpful here. Top 5% at a T2 is much different than top 5% at HYS, and I'm pretty sure journal expectations change as well (grade-on/all write on).

T1 school (but not HYS). Everyone has to participate in the write-on.

Sorry to be a bother, but I'm trying to help you. Do people grade-on at your school?

If people can grade-on (with a good-faith effort) then it might indicate that you totally botched the write-on(LR people didn't think you even put in a good-faith effort). If everyone must write-on, then you're likely someone with good grades who just isn't a top-writer and that will probably change the answer.